Firefox Follows Chrome's Lead (Well.... Eventually)

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/176...ill-shift-to-esr-52-drop-in-mainline-past-51/

saw your post in the thread above, I am going to wait and see , if anything it will mean that I will have to run in a sandbox, but got until 2018 to decide.

Mozilla was talking about new features being difficult to make for xp, but maybe they do not understand that I do not want new features! :)

I saw that waterfox was available for xp64, but I have 32 so that is a no go.

PaleMoon Atom/xp is still available also. :)
 
Well a couple of important things to consider. Pale Moon Atom goes away as of the release of v27, which is likely in the final quarter. So very likely the soup Nazi from Seinfeld will say, "no Pale Moon for you" (as of Christmas). (just kidding ...lol)

Of course you could just run the last v26 release for a while longer.

When Mozilla talks about new features, they really mean under the hood to handle newer browsing platforms (webmail and forum software is being made mobile-compliant all of the time, flash being deprecate for newer HTML5 widgets. So there are more things down the pipe that XP won't handle. I don't think it really means UI features or new commands.
:)
 
What I do/did was, I installed Firefox Portable 28-29 (nothing later) to (create it first) a folder, C:\ Firefox, install it there. No registry changes or anything. The only benefit I have found to ALL newer versions of FF is, you dont keep getting those 'warnings' to upgrade FF. Well, till the next u/g comes out.

-c-
 
As long as theres extended support its fine. Though in 2019 id say it would be a good choice to leave windows xp most software wont work on it including browsers.
 
My favourite, SlimJet ( a Chromium clone, but better) has already dropped XP support. The new version 12.0.0.0, based on Chromium 52, won't run on it. If you go to the download page with XP, it tells you to download the older version 10:-

http://www.slimjet.com/en/dlpage.php

It all depends on how security-conscious you are, I guess. I quite happily run Slimjet version 7 on my old Dell laptop running Puppy Linux.....


Mike. ;)
 
Though if we had kernelex for windows xp browsers and other software wont be a problem, sadly I doubt we will get a windows xp kernelex.
 
Elizabeth23 said:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/176...ill-shift-to-esr-52-drop-in-mainline-past-51/

Mozilla was talking about new features being difficult to make for xp, but maybe they do not understand that I do not want new features! :)
Click to expand...

It was never a case of new features being difficult to make; hell, they've had more years working with XP than any other version of Windows. FireFox was born during XP's tenure, after all.

No, it's simply a case of cutting down on the workload, and simplifying matters for their programmers. (As with every other major organisation involved.....including M$ themselves.)

It's so they can concentrate the maximum amount of effort into the minimum number of different 'directions', IMO.


Mike. ;)
 
Last edited:
It's also why Mozilla, as with all the other major software developers, are looking forward to the day when M$ have everybody 'standardised' on Windows 10, and have dropped support for all other versions. They will then only need to develop three versions; Windows 10, Mac iOS, and Linux.

Further more, I'll go so far as to make the prediction that it won't be so long before M$ decide to drop support for 32-bit Win 10, and 'standardise' on the 64-bit version only. This is in line with what Google have already done with Chrome.

(It's a cultural shift in the industry that began a little over 13 years ago, with the release of the very first variants of the group of processors I myself run; the Athlon 64s, on Socket 754.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64

It's been slowly coming, through all the years since.....and total switch-over was bound to occur, sooner or later.)

M$ have been heading in this direction for long enough. Food for thought, indeed.


Mike. ;)
 
Last edited:
I don't agree.

I think the current industry is always trying to modernize their systems. In the future it might be 128bit processors, etc. However I'm an old developer born and learned to program in the 70's/80's. These days most of what I use have been phased out. However their are DOSBox 0.74, which tries to mimic the old 16bit classics. Imagine a photograph looking so classic that it only has 16 colors compared to your millions of colors when you photographs in this modern era. You are able to continue to operate in Microsoft Windows XP and so on so long that you are able to maintain the machine that it runs on. If your XP runs on 32bit architecture and you take your computer for granted then the future system may be too modern to support what you want; That is my problem! I need a 16bit system for MS-DOS however I have a 64bit system that is only capable of going 32bit at the lowest end that I can see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top